The transformational shift in educational outcomes in London 2003 to 2013: The contribution of local authorities Introduction

- London’s education has had a remarkable transformation in the past 15 or so years
- Very inclusive, with disadvantaged and BME students moving up with the rising tide, commonly outperforming national and improving at a faster rate
- Wide-ranging discussion about what has been behind the results
- We don’t claim to have resolved the issues; but we do try to say something about the role of Local Authorities. It is largely an untold story, at least in the research literature, and it deserves to be better known
- The many LA officers involved in London’s success should get more credit for what they have achieved. Professor Robert Cassen’s contribution has been to interview, Directors of Education/Children’s Services and LA school improvement staff in 4 London boroughs

They said many things in common. Started from a low point. ‘In the mid-90’s we had a few good schools and a lot of terrible ones.’

They all emphasised the use of data, setting targets for schools and monitoring the targets, and taking steps if the targets were not met. ‘Heads didn’t understand spreadsheets in the early 1990s; we had to work with them and by the end of the 1990s things improved.’

They had to counter complacency and low expectations. ‘We could not accept that schools were providing four good lessons out of five; it was like saying children could stay at home one day a week.’

They all emphasised school leadership and concentration on the quality of teaching, including training support in primary schools for headteachers and governors, and ‘good recruitment packages’ to attract the right people. No-one referred to resource shortages: even before the London Challenge, ‘With Excellence in Cities and the Education Action Zones, we had a lot of money coming in.’

The main differences between the boroughs were in local conditions. Some stressed the significance of minority communities, others large transient populations or the perennial problems of disadvantaged White British families.

All agreed on the importance of addressing these specific issues. ‘We’d never have got anywhere without bringing women from the [x] community into our schools as mentors and teaching assistants.’

One further thought: I don’t think the research community should be as single-minded as it is in demanding RCTs and ‘robust statistical modelling’. It is very unlikely that the story of the LA role in London’s success can be derived from either of these Lived experience – In Hammersmith & Fulham, Greenwich, Islington and Hounslow

- Relentless focus on raising standards
- Moral purpose
- Disadvantage not permitted to be a barrier to achievement
- Target setting at LA and school level
- Collecting predictions
- Schools causing concern
- Production of data analysis for schools
- Standards’ Meetings
- Council Scrutiny Let us look at Key Stage 2 Key Stage 2 % Level 4+ in English & Maths Combined from 2005 to 2012 London v National

London overtook national in 2009 Let us look at Key Stage 4 Key Stage 4 % 5+ A\* – C (Inc. English & maths) from 1998 to 2013 London v National

London overtook national in 2004 1 year into the London Challenge Some concepts: 1. The "FT score" – 8 points for an A\* down to one for a G and add up the score for English, maths and their three best other subjects. 2. IDACI – Income Deprivation Affecting Children Index) an index of poverty which measures how poor the neighbourhood in which a child lives is. 3. Uses regression analysis

http://blogs.ft.com/ftdata/author/christophercook/ A school is below the floor standard in 2014 if fewer than 40% of pupils achieve 5+ A *–C (Inc. Eng & maths) and the expected progress between KS2 and KS4 is less than the median of 74% in English and 67% in mathematics. London LAs GCSE Performance v England % 5+ A* – C (Incl. Eng & maths) in 1998, 2003, 2008 and 2013 GCSE and Key Stage 5 Performance Relative to National in 2014 by London Local Authority

Source: DfE Statistical First Releases Notes: The A Level Results (from SfR Table 12b) include all state-funded mainstream schools, academies, free schools and maintained special schools but exclude FE sector colleges, PRUs, non-maintained special schools and other government department funded colleges. Findings from Survey of LA Research & Statistics Officers

Top 10 factors for impact

01. A relentless focus on standards in your LA - 3.72
02. A focus on progress to drive up attainment - 3.53
03. Teaching strategies for EAL at lower stages of fluency in English - 3.50
04. Putting effective school improvement support in place - 3.50
05. LA not allowing disadvantage to be a barrier to achievement - 3.47
06. Schools in your LA committing to the standards’ agenda - 3.47
07. A relentless focus on pupil groups at risk of underperformance - 3.42
08. Pupil tracking in schools - 3.42
09. The role of headteachers in your LA - 3.40
10. Your LA’s stance on schools causing concern - 3.35

Average score between 0 and 4 The London Challenge

Average scores for impact of the London Challenge

- Average: 2.61
- London Challenge across London: 2.83
- London Challenge generally: 2.69
- London Challenge role in improving teacher recruitment in London: 2.55
- London Challenge in your LA: 2.38

Average score between 0 and 4 Was London Challenge responsible for London’s educational success?

- Tim Brighouse: “[It made] more good things happen and fewer bad things happen”

- DfE Evaluators – Merryn Hutchings (London Met Uni. June 12) concluded that it was the main factor, and:

  - “Perhaps the most effective aspect of City Challenge was that it recognised that individuals and school communities tend to thrive when they feel trusted, supported and encouraged. The ethos of the programme, in which successes were celebrated and it was recognised that if teachers are to inspire pupils they themselves need to be motivated and inspired, was a key factor in its success.”

- Ofsted report (Dec 10) – It made a difference and improvements from schools’ involvement sustained once LC support ended

- Our view is that it was a catalyst and a lever to drive improvement, but not the only one – London schools themselves and local authorities played crucial roles Key references on London’s success

- **Evaluation of the City Challenge Programme.** Hutchings, Merryn et al. (DfE 2012)

- **Evaluation of City Challenge Leadership Strategies.** Poet, H., & Kettlewell, K. (London Area Report 2011)

- **London schooling: lessons from the capital.** Wnyess, G. (Centre: Forum 2011)

- **Lessons from London schools for attainment gaps and social mobility.** Greaves, E. et al. (Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission 2014)

- **Understanding the success of London’s schools.** Burgess, S. (The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 2014)

- **Lessons from London schools.** Baars, S. et al. (CfBT and Centre for London 2014)

- **Transforming Education for All: the Tower Hamlets Story.** Woods, D. et al. (Tower Hamlets Council – 2013)

- **Transforming Education: the Lambeth Story.** Demie, F., & McLean C. (Lambeth Council – 2015)

- **Lessons from London: Insights on improving schools.** Brighouse, T. et al (London Councils – 2015) Conclusions

- The London Challenge and the London LAs

- The use of data and improved data literacy

  - But not the LC Families of Schools data

- LA role in target setting in the 2000s – interviews with school improvement officers

- Moral purpose within which disadvantage should not be seen as a barrier to achievement, to paraphrase Mongon & Chapman:

  ‘poverty and culture [were not allowed to] corrode the potential of young people to fulfil their talent’. Conclusions

- LEADERSHIP: Strong link between the quality of system leadership (LAs), school leadership and the impact of good leadership on the quality of teachers and their teaching practice

- It is possible that these factors, allied to:

  - teachers being better able to teach the more diverse pupil intakes in London, and
  - many London children from disadvantaged backgrounds being resilient enough to succeed against the odds

- have all coalesced to drive up the improvements in London over the last 10 years Conclusions

- Our view that the London Challenge bore many of the hallmarks of a successful intervention, but it was not the only factor.

- LC was significant and it acted as a catalyst for change and a lever to drive improvement, but

- the green shoots were already appearing before LC, and

- most London schools and LAs played crucial roles in securing the rapid improvement over the life of the LC and beyond.

- The big challenge now for London is the ability to replicate the successes at Key Stage 2 and 4 at Post 16. Thank you

Contact Details: Sean Hayes – Freelance Education Consultant and LA Researcher Email: sean.hayes@carmo.myzen.co.uk Professor Robert Cassen – London School of Economics Email: R.Cassen@lse.ac.uk IPR: Public domain information in this presentation can be used by anyone. The text in slides 2 to 5 and 16 to 20 is attributable to Robert Cassen and Sean Hayes. Post-16 Attainment in London 2010-2014

Rob Atkins Level 3 Average Points Score per Student

England Level 3 Average Points Score per Student

![Graph showing the average points score per student in England and London from 2010 to 2014. The graph indicates a general decline in scores over the years, with London showing a more significant drop compared to England.](image-url) Level 3 Average Points Score per Student

- England
- London
- Outer London Level 3 Average Points Score per Student

![Graph showing Level 3 Average Points Score per Student for England, London, Outer London, and Inner London from 2010 to 2014. The graph indicates a general decline in scores over the years, with fluctuations in the scores for each region.](image-url) Level 3 Average Points Score per Entry

![Graph showing the average points score per entry for Level 3 in England from 2010 to 2014. The score peaks in 2011 and then decreases before increasing again in 2014.](image-url) Level 3 Average Points Score per Entry

![Graph showing the average points score per entry for England and London from 2010 to 2014. The graph indicates fluctuations in scores with England and London having different trends.](image-url) Level 3 Average Points Score per Entry

![Graph showing Level 3 Average Points Score per Entry for England, London, and Outer London from 2010 to 2014. The graph indicates fluctuations in scores over the years, with England and Outer London showing similar trends, while London has a distinct pattern.] Level 3 Average Points Score per Entry

- England
- London
- Outer London
- Inner London % Achieving AAB or above

England % Achieving AAB or above

- England

- London % Achieving AAB or above

- England

- London

- Outer London % Achieving AAB or above

- England

- London

- Outer London

- Inner London % Achieving grades AAB or above

England % Achieving grades AAB or above % Achieving grades AAB or above

- England

- London

- Outer London % Achieving grades AAB or above

- England

- London

- Outer London

- Inner London Level 2 by 19 Level 2 by 19 Level 2 by 19 Level 2 by 19 Level 3 by 19 Level 3 by 19 Level 3 by 19 Level 3 by 19 IDACI 2010 5 GCSEs A\*-C 2014 KS5 APS 2014 No. Apprenticeships (London) No. Apprenticeships (London)

![Graph showing the number of apprenticeships in London from 2010/11 to 2013/14. The graph indicates a peak in 2011/12 and a decline thereafter.](image-url) No. Apprenticeships (London) % 16-18 Apprenticeships

No 16-18 Apprentices (London) % 16-18 Apprenticeships

- No 16-18 Apprentices (London)

- No 16-18 Achievements (London) % New 6th form provision

- 2011: 81% New 6th Forms (rUK), 19% New 6th Forms (London)

- 2012: 81% New 6th Forms (rUK), 19% New 6th Forms (London)

- 2013: 76% New 6th Forms (rUK), 24% New 6th Forms (London) Mix/balance – A Level Provision

London

- % SSF: 68%
- % SFC: 11%
- % GFE: 6%
- % IND: 15%

Rest of England

- % SSF: 58%
- % SFC: 21%
- % GFE: 8%
- % IND: 13% APE – Dedicated post-16 provision

![Bar chart showing APE GFE, APE SFC, and APE All Post-16 for London and Rest of England.](chart.png) Some final thoughts

- How can we use the experience of improving KS4 to improve KS5 for **ALL** young Londoners Some final thoughts

- How can we use the experience of improving KS4 to improve KS5 for **ALL** young Londoners

- What should the vocational offer be? Do we need a revolution in Apprenticeship provision? How should employers be involved? Some final thoughts

- How can we use the experience of improving KS4 to improve KS5 for **ALL** young Londoners

- What should the vocational offer be? Do we need a revolution in Apprenticeship provision? How should employers be involved?

- Is the mix and balance right? Could we do more to support our colleges? Some final thoughts

- How can we use the experience of improving KS4 to improve KS5 for **ALL** young Londoners

- What should the vocational offer be? Do we need a revolution in Apprenticeship provision? How should employers be involved?

- Is the mix and balance right? Could we do more to support our colleges?

- *(What about IAG? and retention?)* The Post-16 Challenge for London

Cathy Walsh OBE Principal & CEO Barking & Dagenham College What I intend to cover • Do you know FE? • The London landscape - scope, partners, financial challenges • A snap shot of post-16 research • A crowded market • Delivering the skills that the economy needs • Challenges ahead - latest budget cuts Do you know FE? • Entry Level to post-graduate Level 7 • 14 - 60+ • Apprenticeships & Traineeships • Basic English & Maths Skills • Employability skills • GCSEs • A Levels • BTECs • HNC, HND, Foundation Degrees • Post-graduate degrees

- Paid on performance
- Cash flow challenges
- Significant funding reductions
- Unknown quantity
- Variety of funding streams Colleges are economic hubs in their communities

Partners include:

- Schools

- Councils

- HEIs

- Employers Partners include:

- Schools

- Councils

- HEIs

- Employers jobcentreplus

Job brokerage - higher progression rate from JCP courses than the Work Programme Job brokerage - higher progression rate from JCP courses than the Work Programme London Colleges

Total income £1.1 billion

500,800 49 London colleges Total income £1.1 billion Profile similar to schools 500,000 students studying and training in London's colleges 16 to 18 year-olds choose to study...

100,000 study at colleges 78,000 study at schools London has a growing 16-18 population, set to reach 323,600 by 2032 Chart 3: Regional NEET, age 16-18: England, Nov 2013-Jan 2014 average

Source: Client Caseload Information System

Department for Education: NEET Quarterly brief April-June 2014 Snap shot of the research post-16 Snap shot of the research post-16 Setting the post-16 scene Only 33% of 16 year olds who start a Level 2 course progress on to Level 3 30% of Level 3 students in London schools do not have 5 A\*-C GCSEs, including English and Maths C. 25% of year 12/Level 3 starters "dropped out" of their 6th Form before age 18

London Councils: 17+ participation, attainment and progression in London October 2014 Quality of 17+ education a key indicator 17+ "Churn": change course, move, reduce, drop out Proportion of young people in London in Apprenticeships or jobs with training in London - half the national average in 2014 and falling Unemployment in London: Oct 2013- Sept 2014

16 - 64 7.2% 16 - 17 51.2% 18 - 24 17.6% 16 - 24 19.8%

Unemployment in London (October 2013 - Sept 2014, ONS, denominator: economically active persons in the relevant age group) March 2015 research by Green and Pensiero At age 15: England has very high level of skills inequality compared to other developed countries.

16 - 19 phase only adds to the problem

"England remains a long way from establishing an upper secondary system capable of closing the inequality gap." At age 15: England has very high level of skills inequality compared to other developed countries. 16 - 19 phase only adds to the problem Between ages 15 - 27 literacy inequality barely reduces.

For numeracy, the gaps in achievement by social class grow substantially. "England remains a long way from establishing an upper secondary system capable of closing the inequality gap." Lack of impartial, independent Careers Education, Information, Advice & Guidance (CEIAG) Crowdial market: how do parents and young adults choose what's right for them? Crowded market: how do parents and young adults choose what's right for them? A Levels vs Vocational Deep lack of understanding of what colleges do - policy makers, media, parents, and young adults A Levels vs Vocational Deep lack of understanding of what colleges do - policy makers, media, parents, and young adults LEP Priorities

- Micro, small & medium sized enterprises
- Digital creative, science & technology
- Infrastructure
- Skills & employment 134,000 Courses in STEM subjects

Similar volume in Construction, IT Business, & Financial Services cut in Adult Skills Budget If this pattern continues, there could be NO ASB funding by the end of the next parliament. If this pattern continues, there could be NO ASB funding by the end of the next parliament Chris Cook, Policy Editor, Newsnight, BBC online article, 2 March 2015

"Tony Blair is said to have once joked that you could hide a declaration of war in a speech about skills and no-one would ever notice it. He might still be right." BBC World at One Thursday 19 March 2015 None of us is as clever as all of us

LEP

Boroughs

Private Sector

LLDC

Colleges

Greater London Authority

Universities

London Councils

TfL

Central Government 17+ participation, attainment and progression in London: Main research findings and recommendations

Professors Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours Institute of Education, University of London

www.ioe.ac.uk The 17+ issue

• RPA and the importance of sustained and high quality participation post-16

• Successful 17+ participation is the major indicator of potential success at L3 and progression from L2 to L3 by age 19

• London has made important strides in pre-16 attainment but less so in post-16 attainment at L3

• In 2013/14 IOE and London Councils have been researching this issue using secondary data and visits to schools and colleges 17+ participation

- Participation at 16 & 17 in 2014 in London is higher than the rest of the country (92.3%/90.8%) and in full-time education (88.7%/83.2%); participation at 17 continues to rise.

- Participation rates varied considerably between London boroughs depending on their level of economic and social deprivation.

- The proportion of 16-18 year olds studying in school sixth forms and sixth form colleges (SFCs) has increased over the past year, while the percentage studying in general further education colleges (GFEs) has declined.

- Under 3% of 16 & 17 year olds are in WBL/Apprenticeship and this has continued to fall. 17+ retention

- Almost a quarter of Year 12 L3 starters ‘dropped out’ of their sixth form before 18

- Only a third of school students embarking on a L2 course at 16 progressed to L3 study

- 17+ retention in A Level programmes in schools (82%) is greater than in L3 vocational programmes (59%)

- GCSE English and maths at grades A\*-C are highly important in 17+ retention as are the number of GCSEs or vocational equivalents (8 not 5) 17+ attainment

• London is below the national average on all L3 attainment measures (except attainment of two L3 awards at 18) and notably on total points – 682 compared to 706 nationally

• Broader attainment at KS4 produces better outcomes post-16:

➢ About 30% of L3 learners in London schools in 2011/12 did not have A\*-C grades in GCSE E&M and scored on average 540 points

➢ Those who had at least 5 GCSE A\*-C grades including E&M scored on average 753 points at L3

➢ Those with 8+ GCSE A\*-C grades including E&M scored on average 795 points 17+ risk factors for schools

- Low GCSE scores
- Unmotivated learners
- Difficulty recruiting STEM staff
- Student mental health issues
- Limited subject choice
- Lack of A Level expertise
- Small groups
- AS ‘cliff-face’

Year 11

- Lack of effective CEIAG
- Lack of progression skills
- Pressure to take STEM subjects

Year 12

- Lack of parental support
- ‘Comfort zoners’
- Inadequate T & L
- Lack focus on sixth form
- Lack of tracking & support

Low AS grades

- Dropping one or more subjects

- Dropping out or moving to a new programme 17+ risk factors for GFEs and SFCs

- Low GCSE scores

- Students from disadvantaged or ‘chaotic’ backgrounds

- Students lacking social capital

- Lack of progression skills

- Pressure to take academic or STEM subjects

Year 12 or first year of advanced level study

- ‘Comfort zoners’ and unmotivated learners

- AS ‘cliff face’

- Inadequate T & L in some cases

- Student mental health issues

- Effects of qualifications and funding on retention practices (e.g. ILR) School strategies at Key Stage 4

- Shared subject activities between KS4 & Post-16

- Sixth form taster days

- Pitching GCSE teaching at the next level up

- Booster sessions in maths and science in summer

- Early enrolment for Year 12 – diagnosis & study skills

Year 11/12 transition

- Staged guidance process for post-16 choices

- Discussion of HE in Years 10 & 11

- Building in study skills from Year 7

- Careful guidance in choice of subjects at KS4

- Year 11 team moving up with students School strategies in Year 12

- Subject specific support for staff & students

- Enrichment activities (e.g. EPQ, student leadership)

- Tracking & reporting performance

- Mentoring, coaching & tutoring

Year 12 to 13 progression

- Progression to higher education programmes & initiatives (e.g. Brilliant Club)
- Preparation for employment (e.g. work experience & careers fairs)
- Financial support GFE and SFC strategies at 17+

1. Tightening admissions criteria and offering alternative routes
2. Tracking performance and organising individualised interventions
3. Providing individual support and additional activities

Supporting the 'vulnerable' advanced level learner Recommendations

1. The need for a **pan-London focus on 17+** participation, attainment and progression

2. A **Post-16 London Challenge** focused around the 17+ issue

   - Addressing institutional and borough-based variation
   - A step change in the sharing of good practice on the 17+ issue particularly on high quality A Level teaching and learning and underpinning support systems
   - Raising performance through increased partnership working

3. Effective 14-19 **Careers Education, Information Advice and Guidance**

4. An emphasis on building in **progression skills at KS4**

5. Increasing the **supply of high quality vocational (or mixed academic/vocational) L3 provision and apprenticeships**

6. Developing planned ‘**three-year sixth’ programmes** and reinstating funding for 18 year olds Policy Reforms –

What is happening to vocational and technical qualifications and why?

Sarah Read Head of Vocational Qualification Reform Department for Education In England today, around 2.5 million young people are aged 14 to 19. Most now take some vocational courses before they are 16; and post-16 the majority follow courses that are largely or entirely vocational.

But many of England’s 14-19 year olds do not progress successfully into secure employment or higher level education and training. Many leave education without the skills that will enable them to progress at a later date.

Young people are encouraged to take qualifications at age 14-16 which will block their progression to many valuable post-16 options, and for reasons that have nothing to do with the pupils’ own best interests.

At least 350,000 16-19 year olds get little to no benefit from the post-16 education system. Level 3 participation has risen to the highest levels since records began in 1994/95:

In 2013/14, 64.5% of the potential 16-18 cohort entered for at least one level 3 qualification. This has increased from 53.8% in 2008/09 and 63.1% in 2012/13.

Level 3 vocational participation has increased rapidly:

In 2013/14, 28.0% of the potential 16-18 cohort entered for at least one level 3 vocational qualification. This has increased from 15.3% in 2008/09 and 25.9% in 2012/13.

Level 3 A level participation remains stable:

In 2013/14, 41.5% of the potential 16-18 cohort entered for at least one A level. This has increased slightly from 39.9% in 2008/09 but dropped marginally from 41.7% last year.

\*Students can appear in more than one cohort so numbers in the A level and vocational cohorts can sum to more than the total number of level 3 students.

Source: DfE SFR A level and other level 3 results (revised): 2013/14 New routes to university, an apprenticeship or skilled employment

14 to 16

GCSE English and GCSE Mathematics

- GCSEs in core subjects At least three choices from:

* Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics)
* Computer Science
* Geography
* History

- Optional subjects At least three choices from any combination of:

* Other GCSE subjects e.g. Art and Design
* Religious Education
* Music

- Technical awards High-quality qualifications that equip students with applied knowledge and practical skills

16 to 19

Continuing with English and Mathematics For all young people to at least GCSE level

A-levels A range of academic qualifications that support progression into university

Applied general qualifications University-endorsed qualifications that offer the opportunity to gain applied knowledge and skills alongside A-levels

Tech levels Employer-endorsed qualifications for those who want to specialise in a particular occupation or industry sector

Technical certificates Employer-endorsed qualifications for those who need initial training before starting a Tech Level or entering a skilled trade

Apprenticeships A real job with training that leads to further employment opportunities or studying at university level

Traineeships A scheme to help young people who want to get a job or an Apprenticeship but don’t yet have right skills and experience

Other qualifications for students with particular needs that do not count in performance tables Technical and applied qualifications recognised in the school and college performance tables from 2017

**Technical awards (14-16)**

- Qualifications at level 1/2
- Study technical subjects and/or develop practical skills as part of general education
- Equip students with transferable skills and knowledge not usually acquired through GCSEs

**Applied general qualifications (16-19)**

- Qualifications at level 3
- Develop transferable knowledge and skills through study of a broad vocational area
- Enable entry to range of higher education courses, employment or an Apprenticeship

**Technical certificates (16-19)**

- Qualifications at level 2
- Develop knowledge and skills required for one or more specific occupations
- Prepare for entry to employment, an apprenticeship or progression to a Tech Level in a specific occupational sector

**Tech levels (16-19)**

- Qualifications at Level 3
- Develop knowledge and skills required for one or more specific occupations
- Prepare for entry to employment, an apprenticeship or progression to higher education in a specific occupational sector

Broader, less specialist qualifications

More specialist, occupational qualifications Wolf Review:

- Review recommended that vocational options be restricted to 20% of a pupil’s timetable (remaining 80% to be used for the core curriculum)

- 2011 onwards – poor-quality vocational qualifications, those smaller than a GCSE, and those that covered only narrow occupations were identified and excluded from key stage 4 performance tables from 2014

- 2014 – **Technical awards** were announced:

  “broad, high-quality level 1 and level 2 (GCSE-standard) qualifications that equip students with applied knowledge and associated practical skills, not usually acquired through general education”

- Technical awards that passed our approval process last autumn will be taught from September 2015 and reported in the 2017 performance measures Technical and applied qualifications: 14-16 year-olds Technical Awards – the annual approved list

Before Wolf (2011)

Non-GCSE/IGCSE qualifications (including L1/L2 certificates in EBacc subjects)

Technical awards (no EBacc subjects)

2014 list The best qualifications already available at key stage 4

2015 list Qualifications redeveloped so approved qualifications all meet new, tougher requirements (external and synoptic assessment, grading)

2016 list Approval process opened up to brand new qualifications for the first time – these courses started in September 2014

2017 list First list of technical awards – shifting the focus to technical and vocational qualifications and away from EBacc subjects

2018 list New qualifications are under development so we expect to see the list to be a little longer than for 2017 Wolf Review:

- In 2012, 59% of pupils achieved 5+ A\*-C including English and maths at GCSE.
- This figure would have decreased by 5 percentage points if the Wolf reforms had applied to those results:
  - In 513 schools, 5+ A\*-C would have dropped by 10 percentage points
  - In 105 schools, it would have dropped by 20 percentage points
  - In 1 school, no pupils would have achieved 5+ A\*-C (down from 70%)
- In 2014, 53.4% of pupils achieved 5+ A\*-C grades (including English & maths).
- If the Wolf reforms were disapplied to the 2014 results, the 5+ A\*-C figure would increase by only 1.5 percentage points – demonstrating that there has been real behaviour change in schools.

Whilst there is value in the study and mastering of practical skills at 14-16, studying vocationally specific skills that will not be used for 3-4 years serves as a distraction. Wolf Review:

Many of our vocational programmes are not as good as they could or should be, in terms of what either the labour market or higher education demands.

- **2013 - Tech levels** were announced:

  “advanced (level 3) qualifications, recognised by employers, that equip students with the specialist skills and knowledge they need for occupations such as engineering, computing, accounting or hospitality”

- Students who achieve a Tech Level in combination with a level 3 Maths qualification and the extended project will be recognised as meeting the **Technical Baccalaureate** (‘TechBacc’) standard and there will be a funding uplift for students who successfully complete large TechBacc programmes

- **Technical certificates** offer initial technical training (at level 2). They cover occupations where employers recognise entry at this level and enable students to access specialist tech levels. Awarding organisations have up to 2 years to ensure that their qualifications meet the full requirements:

| | Taught from 2014, reported in 2016 tables | Taught from 2015, reported in 2017 tables | Taught from 2016, reported in 2017 tables | Taught from 2017, reported in 2018 tables | |----------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | Tech levels | Interim requirements | Interim or full requirements | Full requirements | Full requirements | | Applied general qualifications | Interim requirements | Interim or full requirements | Full requirements | Full requirements | | Technical certificates | Interim requirements | Interim or full requirements | Full requirements | Full requirements |

Interim requirements: declared purpose, size, recognition

Full requirements: appropriate content, appropriate assessment, synoptic assessment, grading, employer involvement (for tech levels and technical certificates); and track record and progression (after first awarding) Technical and applied qualifications: 16-19 year-olds Tech levels, applied general and technical certificates

Before Wolf (2013)

Tech levels

2016 list 2017 list

230 284

Applied general qualifications

2016 list 2017 list

91 107

Technical certificates

2017 list

162

• Tech levels available in all major sectors\* – mainly larger qualifications • Some already meet 'full requirements' • All need to do so by autumn 2015

• Fewer applied general qualifications than Tech Levels – mainly smaller qualifications • Some already meet 'full requirements' • All need to do so by autumn 2015

• First list of L2 qualifications • None yet meet 'full requirements' • All need to do so by autumn 2016

- Sectors not covered by tech levels include social sciences (predominantly covered by academic qualifications), preparation for life and work (actively discouraged at level 3 as qualifications do not lead to recognised occupations), and education and training (where entry is primarily at graduate level). | Date | Event | |--------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | September 2012: | First teaching of approved non-GCSE qualifications | | September 2014: | First teaching of approved tech levels and applied general qualifications | | December 2014: | First publication of approved lists for all four categories of technical and applied qualifications, approved for teaching from 2015 and inclusion in 2017 performance tables | | January 2015: | 2014 performance tables published – the first to show the impact of the Wolf reforms at key stage 4 | | September 2015: | First teaching of new technical awards and approved technical certificates and some ‘full standard’ tech levels and applied general qualifications | | Late autumn 2015: | Next publication of the four lists of technical and applied qualifications, those approved for teaching from 2016 for inclusion in 2018 performance tables, including ‘full standard’ tech levels and applied general qualifications | | January 2017: | 2016 performance tables published – the first to report achievement of tech levels and applied general qualifications at 16-19 | | January 2018: | 2017 performance tables published – the first to report achievement of technical awards at key stage 4 and technical certificates at 16-19 |

Key: milestones affecting key stage 4 only; both key stage 4 and 16-19 2016 Accountability Changes

Dave Thomson

2014 changes to Performance Tables

Wolf Review

- Restricted set of qualifications
- No qualifications equivalent to >1 GCSE
- Only 2 non-GCSEs per pupil

Early entry policy

- Phased introduction

The attainment 8 measure

Any Ebacc maths qualification:

- Maths GCSE
- Maths AS
- Linked pair (discounting applies)
- Maths level 1/2 certificates (IGCSE)\*
- NOT – free standing maths qualifications (go into “other” bucket)

Any three\* from (but take 3/4 of discounting rules):

- Core science, additional science
- Double science
- Separate sciences (1, 2 or 3) – diff from Ebacc discounting
- Modern/ancient languages
- History
- Geography
- Computer Science
- NOT - English

Any 3 “high value” qualifications:

- Can use “spare” Eng Lit here
- Can use spare Ebacc
- Can be 3 non-GCSEs
- Can be statistics GCSE

Attainment 8 and Progress 8, 2014

% pupils with full entry in A8, 2014 But is the P8 gap really that wide?

Progress 8 by ethnicity in London

KS5 Complexity

- Not based on all students - just those who complete level 3 study by age 18
- Not just about schools
- Variation between institutions (and regions) in entries
  - Types of qualifications
  - Number of qualifications
- More variation in quantity (entries) than in quality (APS)

Y11 Students 2011 completing L3 study

16-19 Accountability

- Reform of vocational qualifications
- Average Grade (in 4 Qualification Groups)
- Progress for academic + applied general; attainment/completion for tech levels/level 2
- English and maths GCSE (for students without at least a grade C at age 16)
- % of students who complete ‘core aims’ (in 4 Qualification Groups)
- % of students progressing to sustained education, employment or training (possibly) Level 3 APS per student, 2014

Level 3 APS (2016 quals) per student, 2014

Y12 L3 Students retained in school

% Level 3 Students in FE Colleges 2014

Level 3 attainment and entries, 2014

Differences in entry rates Progress calculated by adding up individual subject value-added scores.

Points Score 0,10,20,30,40,50,60 (A-Level) with other subjects mapped onto this scale. Current SIZE retained.

For prior attainment students will be allocated to one of 20 bands (vintiles) based on KS4 APS (GCSEs only for academic L3 and all quals for applied general L3)

DfE view is that linkage from KS4 to these subjects is too low to use VA. So, will show difference from national average.

Non-completions/withdrawals included

To be reviewed in 2018

KS5 APS per student, 2014

Level 3 Value Added by LA, 2014

KS5: Other Proposed Changes

- Students to be counted at >1 institution
- Tech Bacc
  - Tech Level 3
  - Level 3 maths
  - Extended project
- A level reforms from 2015
- Pilot/ experimental data during 2015 and 2016

Further Info

DfE

- https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/359909/Technical_Guide_final_for_publication.pdf
- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/progress-8-school-performance-measure

FFT

- http://www.educationdatalab.org.uk/ Improving the relationship between education and business

Deirdre Hughes, Director, DMH & Associates Ltd, Associate Fellow, Warwick University IER & UKCES Commissioner 20th March 2015 Aim

To focus on improving the relationship between education and business and reflect on the evidence-base

- Think about the macro challenges ahead

- Discuss enablers and barriers

- Identify levers for change London as a labour market

- 40% of London’s working age population holds a level 4 qualification (equivalent to a certificate of higher education) compared to 30% across the UK;

- The average household income per head in London is 30% higher than the UK level;

- London has the highest percentage of self-employment of any region at 18%, compared with a UK average of 14%;

- London's employment rate of 68% is persistently below the UK rate of 70% – and rates vary greatly between boroughs, from under 60% to more than 75%;

- The proportion of young people in apprenticeships and jobs with training in London stood at half the England average in 2014 and has fallen over the last 12 months (IOE, 2014)

- Around 300,000 people registered unemployed in London – one in six of the UK total. Education & Employers: Policy backdrop?

Patch work masquerading as unified & coherent? Education & Employers: Who says what?

**DfE**

- Statutory guidance
- Non-statutory guidance

**DBIS**

- Employers, Partnerships, Skills
- Colleges; Apprenticeships, Traineeships

**Related**

- GLA; LEP; London Councils; ASCL; NAHT; Ofsted; UKCES; CBI; TUC; BCC; FSB; SFA; OECD: EC Growth Through People Sustaining the recovery: 3 challenges

• Growth in **productivity** is the most important factor for sustaining the recovery and improving pay and social mobility.

• But productivity has remained subdued since the recession, and is **2.2% below where it was in 2008**.

• We have identified 3 challenges in sustaining the recovery and achieving growth through people, using the metaphor of rungs on the career ‘ladder’: **getting in, getting on and moving up**. An overview

• The economy is recovering and recent employment growth has been impressive – but there remain deep-rooted challenges that must be addressed if growth is to be sustained and competitiveness improved.

• That’s why in November 2014, UKCES published *Growth Through People*, backed by the CBI and TUC.

• Building on our previous work and a substantial evidence, we have identified 3 deep-rooted skills and employment challenges, and 5 priorities for action. The challenge: Getting in to work

- **Youth unemployment is falling**, but securing a foothold into a good career is still harder than it was twenty years ago.

- The UK is particularly unusual in that the **ratio of youth unemployment to adult unemployment is 3.6**, significantly higher than other leading economies.

- This is a **structural problem** that has been around since before the recession, reflecting a long-term decline in entry level jobs in industries that young people traditionally go into, and fewer opportunities to combine earning, learning and to progress. The challenge: Getting on at work

- Globalisation, new technology and longer working lives are changing the labour market.

- **Traditional middle-skilled jobs** such as clerical and secretarial trades declined by £1.2m in 1992-2012, alongside the emergence of a new ‘middle’ requiring higher skill levels than before. Meanwhile, **low skill jobs grew by £1.3m** and **high skill jobs grew by £4.6m**.

- As a result there are **growing opportunities for highly skilled people** in both employment and wages, but **longer pathways and greater competition for those in low skill roles**. The challenge: Moving up to higher skilled jobs

- The workforce is getting better educated - by 2020 nearly half of the workforce will be qualified to degree level and above, overtaking the USA.

- But in certain sections of the economy businesses face long-standing skills shortages.

- At the same time there are significant portions of the workforce with skills that are under-utilised – this equates to 4.3 million workers or 16% of employees. The complexity

• These deep-rooted challenges are not new – and there is no easy win. They vary by sector, locality and business size. They also impact disproportionately on different communities within society.

• Pressures on public and private finances, and a changing world of work, mean that traditional models of skills investment are unsustainable.

• To effectively tackle these challenges we will need sustained leadership and collaboration on the part of government and industry over the long term. How to deliver growth through people: 5 priorities

Building on a substantial evidence base, we have identified 5 priorities for action:

1. Employers should lead on skills and government should enable them
2. Improving workplace productivity should be recognised as the key route to increasing pay and prosperity
3. ‘Earning and learning’ should be the gold standard in vocational education
4. Education and employers should be better connected to prepare people for work
5. Success should be measured by a wider set of outcomes, not just educational attainment
6. Employers should lead on skills and government should enable them

- To meet the challenges we face, businesses and the people who work in them must be in the driving seat.

- We are making good progress in the UK. For example, in England industrial partnerships of businesses working with each other, trade unions and other partners are tackling skills and recruitment challenges in their industries.

- However, partnership working across the UK is underdeveloped. Only 13% of firms work with other employers to access, share or provide training. What needs to happen?

• We need **a new level of leadership from employers** to take responsibility for competitiveness and growth.

• Employers, working with each other and with their employees and trade unions, should raise the bar on skills in sectors, regions and supply chains. **Collaboration is vital to building the skills we need for competitiveness.**

• **Governments should commit to supporting employer leadership on skills**, individually and in partnerships, as a central part of long-term growth plans and a way of aligning public and private resources. 2. Improving workplace productivity should be recognised as the key route to pay and prosperity

- **Productivity and the workplace matter - to business competitiveness and to social mobility.**

- How productive people are in work depends on their level of skills and how those skills are used. In turn this depends on management, how jobs are designed, how technology is deployed and crucially, how people and organisations are led.

- Whilst the UK has many of the highest performing businesses in the world, there is a ‘long tail’ of poorly performing firms. Using the Investors in People Framework, the Landmark London hotel achieved £35k in savings and saw a rise in guest satisfaction ratings and mystery guest scores after increasing their employee engagement.

Unionlearn supports employee-led learning through its 30,000+ union learning representatives. Last year alone they helped 220,000 employees to engage in a range of work-based learning. For example, at a union-led learning centre jointly funded by retail union USDAW and DHL, apprenticeships have been introduced for the first time at a DHL-run distribution centre for Sainsbury’s. Union representatives provide ongoing support to the apprentices including arranging work-based training at the learning centre.

In the Finnish Workplace Development Programme (Tykes), the Finnish government co-invest in workplace projects with private firms with the aim of improving productivity and the quality of working life. Projects have led to increased labour productivity and quality of operations and reduced workload and sickness absence.

“If we are serious about raising productivity and creating better jobs, the workplace matters.”

Jeremy Anderson, Chairman, Global Financial Services, KPMG What needs to happen?

• Up to 90% of the current workforce will still be in work in the next decade. To tackle the productivity deficit for the economy as a whole, there must be a much greater focus on job design, technology and progression for those in work.

• Equipping people with the right skills and giving them the best opportunities to use them will lead to better paid jobs.

• This means better leadership and management of people and organisations, increased employee engagement and more transparency about the value of people to business success. 3. ‘Earning and learning’ should be the gold standard in vocational education

- Combining work with learning helps young people make their first step into a career. In general terms young people who do this are less likely to be NEET, and earn more than those who don’t.

- Just 10% of UK employers currently employ apprentices - far lower than in Austria, Germany, Switzerland and Australia where there are three to four times as many.

- Employers should be encouraged to develop quality ‘earn while you learn’ routes - including apprenticeships, higher apprenticeships, school leaver programmes and sandwich degrees. What needs to happen?

• We need **a step change in attitude and uptake of quality vocational routes** into good jobs. High quality apprenticeships should be a normal career pathway for many more young people, and a normal way for businesses to recruit and develop their talent pipeline.

• **Employers, working collaboratively, should have the lead role in designing apprenticeships** to ensure they have value in the labour market. The public contribution should be channelled via employers to stimulate greater employer uptake.

• In England, **long-term stability in vocational education and training is essential** for employers to have the confidence to engage. 4. Education and employers should be better connected to prepare people for work

- To create a workforce with the right skills and experience, far greater connectivity is needed between the education system and the world of work.

- Exposure to the world of work should be a central feature of every young person’s educational experience.

- But the reality is that only 30% of employers offer young people work experience. Part-time work opportunities for young people have also declined – the so-called ‘death of the Saturday job’. What needs to happen?

• To create new pathways into work we need to start much earlier. **All schools should have links with local businesses** and use those links to inform and inspire young people about the breadth of career opportunities available.

• Further education colleges should be supported to work with employers to **deliver higher level technical and professional education to meet the UK’s technical skills gaps**.

• **Closer collaboration between employers, colleges and universities** is essential to ensure there are seamless opportunities to work and learn over the course of longer working careers. 5. Success should be measured by a wider set of outcomes not just educational attainment

- To improve productivity and social mobility, measuring and rewarding educational attainment via qualifications alone is no longer good enough.

- Qualifications are important and give learners portable evidence of skills, but they must also lead to good labour market outcomes: a job, a better job, or for the business, the ‘job done better’.

- A wider basket of outcome measures would provide a way of aligning incentives, create stability for employers and individuals to invest over the long term, and foster a culture of continuous assessment and improvement. What needs to happen?

• We need to **align measurement of schools, colleges and universities** more clearly **with the outcomes that are needed for sustained growth** through people.

• These outcome measures should be more prominent in **demonstrating accountability** and key outcome data shared widely with employers, individuals and communities.

• **Reliable labour market intelligence** should be widely used to support better decision making by individuals, employers and education providers. Understanding the link between employers and schools and the role of the National Careers Service – Warwick University, IER

- **Literature review** - employers are working with schools/colleges in a variety of ways but activities need to be incorporated within structures and models that allow for a more substantive up-scaling and coherence of provision.

- **Survey data** - 301 employers and from 98 educational establishments (78 schools and 20 colleges).

- Data supplemented by **12 in-depth interviews** with career representatives in schools/colleges, with **case studies** undertaken on six, representing examples of good practice.

- **Semi-structured interviews** were also conducted with 23 key stakeholder organisations, including the National Careers Service helpline and webchat services.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/386030/bis-14-1271-understanding-the-link-between-employers-and-schools-and-the-role-of-the-national-careers-service.pdf](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/386030/bis-14-1271-understanding-the-link-between-employers-and-schools-and-the-role-of-the-national-careers-service.pdf) Employer Survey

• More than half of all engaged employers had undertaken some type of activity in the last half year. **Main reasons for a lack of more regular engagement were threefold:** lack of time and resources; unwillingness of schools (unable or not interested); and the age restriction preventing employment of staff under the age of 18 years.

• **Approximately half of all engaged employers indicated that these activities had not had any benefit to their business.**

• **Approximately half of all employers surveyed had never engaged with schools or colleges.** • Nearly all indicated that they were not interested in linking with schools or colleges in the future, because of lack of time and resources; financial reasons, and/or barriers created by health and safety and insurance regulations. Some stated that they could not see any potential benefit to their businesses of this activity. Conclusions

01. Activities rationalised and incorporated within better co-ordinated structures and local models - more substantive up-scaling and coherence of provision

02. Incentivising SMEs to work with educational institutions and the National Careers Service and should be a policy priority.

03. Scope to incentivise, stimulate and support employer interest in engaging more fully with schools and colleges - a clear steer is required to indicate the types of support (e.g. ‘local hubs’) that could and should be provided. Conclusions

04. Employer engagement activities in school and colleges should be promoted alongside careers education and access to impartial careers guidance, not as an alternative to impartial guidance. Strong school leadership is essential to drive forward new conversations and actions.

05. School and colleges welcome support with developing links with employers

    - database of employers
    - brokerage service
    - mapping of partnership organisations
    - examples of good practice
    - expose teachers to labour market information
    - focus on teacher’s CPD

06. School and colleges would welcome support with developing links with employers. They need and want further information and support on employer contacts and the range of activities they can bring to the institution(s) such as mentors, role models, work experience, talks and visits to the workplace. Conclusions

07. High quality, reliable labour market information (LMI) is in high demand from schools and colleges

08. Less than half of all the employers surveyed were aware of the National Careers Service

09. An ‘Employer-Led Advisory Body’ ….could help facilitate the strengthening of strategic partnerships and more flexible utilisation of resources between the National Careers Service, employers and schools

10. Limited resources available to the National Careers Service, working in partnership with the Local Enterprise Partnerships and Local Authority Economic Development Units and other agencies avoiding duplication of the work of the local education business partnerships (EBPs) For more information:

www.gov.uk/ukces www.deirdrehughes.org

info@ukces.org.uk deirdre.hughes3@btinternet.com

@ukces @deirdretalks